Poll: Carrying Concealed Weapons

Should a federal law require New York to accept other states' gun permits?

The House passed a bill that would require states to honor permits issued by other states that allow people to carry concealed weapons. One of the leading opponents of the bill is Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-Garden City, whose husband, Dennis, was one of six people shot to death on a Long Island Rail Road train on Dec.7, 1993.

Do you think we should allow more people to carry concealed weapons? Are you influenced by the C.W. Post professor who accidentally shot himself on campus last week?

Frank LeClair November 21, 2011 at 07:00 PM
@Christopher, You're incorrect: Gun control, either loosening OR tightening it, has NEVER had ANY significant or consistent effect on violent crime rates anywhere in the world it has EVER been tried. The right to keep and bear arms must simply be defended on its own merit, that we ALL have the right to life and liberty, and the unalienable right to keep and bear arms stems directly from those rights. We shouldn't even be having to beg permission from the government before we are "allowed" to carry a firearm, either concealed or open.
Dan Platt November 21, 2011 at 07:04 PM
The law allows for conditions imposed on carrying for anybody who has a license, and who is not disabled from carrying or possessing by Federal law (e.g. certain misdemeanors and all felonies; restraining orders, etc). Conditions that are imposed on all people, licensed or not, by state law appear to also be enforced. It also requires out-of-state licensees to comply with all the laws that apply to resident licensees while visiting any given state. It would appear this does nothing to limit a state's powers in regulating what people with licenses can do with their firearms. `(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
Ralph Warner November 21, 2011 at 07:15 PM
Can you really take anything serious, that McCarthy supports ? I mean, when she was asked if she knew what a barrel shroud is, after attempting to avoid the question, she admitted that she didn't know, and then asked, "Is it the shoulder thing that goes up ?" But hey, don't believe me, listen for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3FsGlseScA Like McCarthy, a lot of the anti-gun extremists are clueless about firearms, but attempt to make the ignorant and uninitiated think that they know what they are talking about. This is what the defenders of the Second Amendment are fighting against, the blatant lies, propaganda, and disinformation that people like McCarthy put out. I feel for McCarthy and her loss, nobody should lose a family member to criminal violence. As a police officer, I saw plenty of it, and that's one reason I'm so supportive of law abiding citizens retaining the right to keep and carry arms outside of their home for self defense. And because people are more vulnerable while they travel, besides a spare tire, and fire extinguisher, I can't think of a tool more necessary than a firearm.
Ben Johnson November 21, 2011 at 07:31 PM
If there were some CCW permit holders on that train maybe those poor people would have had a fighting chance… instead only criminals are armed and citizens are like sheep for slaughter.
choprzrul November 21, 2011 at 07:36 PM
We are all born with all of our civil rights. The Bill of Rights was put in place to stop government intrusion into our civil rights. Any law in place that limits the free exercise of a civil right is an affront to our Constitutional Republic and the liberty of its citizens. Those who would seek to further the oppression of the citizen's civil rights are not fit to serve in public office. This bill seeks to restore citizen's civil rights. Opposing it is opposing liberty.
Haig November 21, 2011 at 07:45 PM
An individual has a right to defend him(her)self. How can anyone, let alone a liberal America hater, have to right to say otherwise.
Pam Robinson (Editor) November 21, 2011 at 07:54 PM
I'm curious--do you accept ANY restrictions on people carrying weapons--criminals, people with mental illness, age, infirmities, etc.?
Jon Dunn November 21, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Rep. McCarthy, I also am sorry for your personal loss. Perhaps if someone on that train had been carrying a concealed firearm the perpetrator might have been stopped before murdering your husband. Moments ago UPS rang my doorbell and delivered to me my copies of Prof. John R. Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and Prof. Adam Winkler's "Gun Fight", I'll let you know what I think about gun control after I read them.
Jon Dunn November 21, 2011 at 08:01 PM
Pam, Convicted felons and those adjudicated as 'mentally deficient' are barred from owning/possessing firearms. What does age have anything to do with it? Regarding infimities, a parapalegic in a wheelchair needs the ability to defend him/herself as much if not more than a fully abled person. Are you advocating vistim disarmament?
Pam Robinson (Editor) November 21, 2011 at 08:05 PM
Jon, I'm not advocating anything, just trying to get more information on where people stand on this issue. Thanks.
Ralph Warner November 21, 2011 at 08:14 PM
Just out of curiosity, what do you know about firearms, and what restrictions do you think should be in place ?
DPM November 21, 2011 at 08:43 PM
I agree with Ralph and as a fellow police officer, am glad to see the myth of "law enforcement support" for Ms. McCarthy's radical agendas debunked. Law abiding citizens are not, have not been, and will not be the problem - criminals are. Interestingly, as of today, 51 members of congress are calling for Attorney General Holder's resignation over the "Fast and Furious" scandal, yet still no word from our other so-called "representative" Senator Gillibrand. See, it's kind of hard to take politicians seriously when it appears as though our own government is one of the biggest culprits with respect to recent gun violence. Indeed, one law enforcement officer is dead due to guns supplied by and with government approval and many of our elected officials remain mum.
ccw November 21, 2011 at 08:51 PM
Mrs. McCarthy, You took an oath to uphold and DEFEND the Constitution. What part of "Shall not be Infringed" Do You not understand.
Charles O. November 21, 2011 at 08:51 PM
As a life-long LI’er who grew up hunting and fishing around the Island I resent having to continually concede ground on this issue to Mayor Bloomberg and his political cronies. He is very outspoken and I really think he has too much influence on OUR regional politics. We are Americans. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also have a right to bear arms. The vast majority of other states acknowledge this basic right and none of them turned into the “wild wild west” by doing so. I think it’s high time we New Yorkers quit living in the left-wing dark ages and start taking back our rights. What I would like to see is greater support from local politicians and licensing agencies to HELP us exercise our 2nd amd rights, instead of continually pushing legislation which bars us from doing so. The current “licensing system” we have in place is deliberately designed to be socially exclusive and cost prohibitive which is a total shame. What we need is more modernization and firearms education, and less political fear mongering. The right to personal protection is basic, and honest law abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right without infringement.
NYB November 21, 2011 at 08:59 PM
The issue of felons owning guns is a difficult and new problem, mostly because until more recently in our history, most felonies were punishable by death and therefore a felon’s rights after punishment were not much of an issue. My opinion is that violent convicted felons should not be released out onto the streets. They will get guns anyway if they want them, so the issue is rather moot. Take the restriction or leave it, felons will be armed. Perhaps the solution to the felon issue is correctional reform, such that violent criminals aren't released, rehabilitation is possible and that upon release, rehabilitated felons can petition the competent judicial jurisdiction for a return of their rights. Honestly the rights of felons are a minor issue to be worked out later, as the debate over the rights afforded to convicted violent criminals should not prevent the law abiding from accessing the necessary means of personal protection. Likewise, we cannot allow the mental defectives of society to run rampant with access to destructive implements, and likewise, if they are so dangerous, they should be kept institutionalized. That said, those adjudicated as mental defectives should have, upon rehabilitation, the right to petition the court for a return of their rights. It's all about due process. Once you say, "No guns for the insane," who gets to draw the line and to whom does one appeal? If you can implement a process to judiciously address individuals as individuals...
Tom Cassidy November 21, 2011 at 09:02 PM
Pam, and Rep. McCarthy, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. issue same sex marriage licenses. Should the other states honor those licenses? My wife and I were married in Illinois but we now live in California. Should California honor our marriage license? Last summer we drove from California to Wisconsin. Should the states in between honor our California Drivers Licenses? Doesn't the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution make it incumbent on the States to honor each others laws, licenses, and judgments? If you are against each state honoring the others state's carry licenses are you also, to be consistent, against each state honoring marriage and drivers licenses from other states? Civil rights are one of the most important issues today. If we are not consistent and honor all person's civil rights sooner or later none will be honored. I support your 1st amendment right to publish opinions I may disagree with. Will you support my 2nd amendment right to keep (own) and bear (carry) firearms for my and my family's protection? If so, thank you. If not, shame on you. :)
NYB November 21, 2011 at 09:07 PM
...you have little need of arbitrary line drawing. The infirm are citizens, just as I am, and so are those of the age of majority. 21 isn't a terrible line to draw in today's society, but then you risk infringing on the rights of a narrow section of responsible adults. So, make the line 18, recognize the legitimate rights of young citizens and let the chips fall where they may. Young people have access to firearms anyway, if they try hard enough, so why do we criminalize it? "The defect of equality is that we only desire it with our superiors." -Henry Becque The fact is, it is adults who have stripped the young of their God given right because it doesn't affect them and they don't care.
Frank LeClair November 21, 2011 at 09:09 PM
Trying to restrict any of those people from getting/carrying a gun with a LAW is useless, since gun control has NEVER proven to make any society safer. If a convicted criminal is considered too dangerous to allow them to have a gun, then why are they allowed back out on the street where they will ALWAYS be able to get one? Same thing with mental illness. Just like illegal drugs, if someone wants to get their hands on a gun and they're prohibited from legally doing so, no law is going to stop them if they're willing to break the law to get what they want. As far as age, it should be unrestricted for any free person 18 or older - under that age is the parent's judgement, and with that the parent is responsible.
Christopher J Hoffman November 21, 2011 at 09:16 PM
Pam, long standing restrictions on felons, mentally ill, those dishonorably discharged from the military, drug addicts, and those under restraining orders were re-affirmed in Heller vs DC, the landmark case that clarified keeping and bearing is an individual right. Two years later the SCOTUS applied the 2nd amendment to bind the states in MsDonald vs Chicago. In 'Mcdonald' and recently 'Ezell vs Chicago", the court further clarified that the right to cary a functional firearm for self defense is FUNDAMENTAL. That means the right gets the same high level of scrutiny as any other fundamental right like, speech, religion, and the guarantee any unreasonable search and seizure, etc. Fortunately, trained, screened, and licensed individuals have proven to be more trustworthy with that right than even their most ardent supporters could have imagined.
NYB November 21, 2011 at 09:18 PM
And they have done it for votes and based on bad science and flawed theory. The infirm are not mental defectives, they are aware of the consequences of their actions. If they cannot handle a firearm and are apt to miss their targets in armed engagements, they should be the ones to hand in the keys. (last time I checked, the NYPD hit rate was about 2% - remember the 70:1 hit ratio at the West Indian Day Parade that killed an innocent bystander and left the suspect alive?) That said, we don't retest drivers and they roam the roads running down small children and pets, why should we now care what someone does in their own home from the comfort of their death bed? What is the solution? Abrogate their property rights and swoop in like the nanny state we are to deprive them of their Second Amd. right and their property without due process? A free society entails some risk of danger, you don't feel as safe without the feel good laws protecting you, but in the end, the laws accomplish no more safety (and probably less) than a group of free individuals exercising their individual rights. Freedom isn't free and it isn't the safety helmet utopia that we want it to be, but in the end, there will be no gang of thieves or government agents coming to enslave and murder us either. I'll take the tradeoff.
NYB November 21, 2011 at 09:24 PM
*Correction: That is a 20% hit rate with an average of 2 shots fired per engagement.
Tom Cassidy November 21, 2011 at 09:50 PM
Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay. Don't like guns? Don't buy one. Don't like Freedom? Move to China. Seems pretty simple to me. :)
Tom November 21, 2011 at 09:59 PM
It should be just like a drivers license. Issued in one state, honored in all others. Full faith and credit is guaranteed in the US Consitution.. Of course, I wouldn't want anyone having a concealed "Shoulder thing that goes up" in any state...
Jason Thompson November 21, 2011 at 10:04 PM
The only thing I want to know is. Do we think that if Colin Ferguson thought it was a possibility that there was at least one other armed person on the LIRR when he committed his atrocity would he have done it? A disarmed population makes an easy target.
Will S November 22, 2011 at 12:39 AM
We are "The United States of America". "United" means we all as citizens share in the common rights and responsibilities guaranteed - and required - by our Constitution. A license to carry a concealed firearm for personal defense should be treated the same as any other civil right and be recognized by every state in the nation. In fact, a license should not be required at all by law-abiding citizens, as this right and responsibility "shall not be infringed".
Dov Neidish November 22, 2011 at 02:54 AM
Don't confuse me with facts! Gun haters such as Rep. McCarthy don't want you to know the truth. And that truth is that in every jurisdiction where concealed carry is the law of the land, and individuals are free to protect themselves, crime goes down. Similarly, while the gun haters predict that there will be bloodshed in the streets, these same jurisdictions prove otherwise. But don't confuse me with the facts.
NYB November 22, 2011 at 03:17 AM
2A rights, so far, have not been assigned a level of scrutiny in the traditional sense, however the Supreme Court has been using a level of indeterminate intermediate scrutiny to address the application of rights under the 2A to the Constitution. Unfortunately we did not get strict scrutiny, but in time, the court will ease into it. Public safety concerns are politically important and at least somewhat legitimate, the water will be heated slowly.
Ben Johnson November 22, 2011 at 03:35 AM
I don’t believe anyone would seriously advocate for convicted felons or those deemed mentally incompetent to be able to carry (or even posses) firearms. It’s a silly argument thrown out there by those who advocate for more gun control for the purpose of stirring up fear among the percentage of the public who doesn’t know any better. The simple fact is… if you commit a felony then you forfeit your rights… period… no discussion… end of story. But for the other 99.99% of us who did not commit a felony, we have the right to defend our lives, loved ones and property. Police are good for making sense of a crime scene after the fact and they do their best to identify and prosecute those responsible for the crimes, but the only one who can reasonably be responsible for your self defense is you… I’m pretty sure that’s why they call it self defense. Anyone who studies the history and empirical data concerning this topic and is intellectually honest would have to agree that people are safer and crime is lower when governments do not restrict the citizen’s right to self defense.
Will S November 22, 2011 at 03:55 AM
You had my vote until that last sentence. Completely uncalled for. If you want to promote your view, act like an adult.
Pam Robinson (Editor) November 22, 2011 at 04:10 AM
Comments are closed, gentlemen. Poll remains open.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something